Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBHPCMinutes_2014_03_131 Brookings Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2014 A meeting of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission was held on Thursday, March 13, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. in City Hall. Members present: Holly Fetzer-Fickler (left @ 6 pm), Janet Gritzner, Leah Brink, Mary Bibby, Dennis Willert (left @ 6 pm) and Les Rowland. Tom Agostini was absent. Shari Thornes, City Clerk, was also present. Chairperson Rowland called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. Discussion regarding the Masonic Temple, the Bob Yapp Sunday workshop topics and the National Trust Peg Lamont Fund were added to the agenda. A motion was made by Bibby, seconded by Brink, to approve the agenda as amended. All present voted yes, motion carried. A motion was made by Bibby, seconded by Brink, to approve the February minutes with an address clarification regarding 614 and 616 7th Avenue. All present voted yes; motion carried. Next meeting: Thursday, April 3rd at 4:00 p.m. CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT 11.1 Review - 912 6th Street. Tom Bozied (Cokato), owner of 912 6th Street, has applied for a demolition permit for the residence and garage located on this property. The buildings located in the Brookings Central Residential Historic District, but are both are noncontributing structures. The owner plans to remove the structure in order to construct a 40 foot expansion to his gas station/convenience store located to the east. The design will be similar to the existing commercial structure with access to the rear car wash provided on the west lot line. Mr. Bozied said the case report process is confusing and suggested a layman’s version of the case report questions be created for applicants. He said his proposal is a simple expansion project to create more floor space for additional product. He said he doesn’t plan to expand the gas pumps at this time. When asked about the condition of the house, he advised it was in good condition and he would consider making it available to move. Commission members expressed concern that there was no timeline/schedule and no plans for the expansion included in the case report. He was asked what landscaping and greenscape would be included if the house was removed and the convenience store expanded to the west. He questioned why the Commission would ask about landscaping. Staff advised landscaping was one of the standards a historic commission is required to consider when reviewing new construction in a historic district, pursuant to SD Administrative Rule 24:52:07:04. 24:52:07:04. Standards for new construction and additions in historic districts. New construction or additions within a historic district must comply with The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as incorporated by reference in § 24:52:07:02. In addition the following standards apply: (1) Compatibility of design. Massing, size, and scale of new construction must be compatible with surrounding historic buildings. Overall architectural features of new construction must be of contemporary design which does not directly mimic historic buildings. Architectural elements such as windows, doors, and cornices must be similar in rhythm, pattern, and scale to 2 comparable elements in adjacent historic buildings. The overall visual appearance of new construction may not dominate or be distracting to the surrounding historic landscape; (2) Height. The height of new buildings or additions to existing buildings may not exceed a standard variance of ten percent of the average height of historic buildings on both sides of the street where proposed new construction is to be located; (3) Width. The width of new buildings or additions to existing buildings must be similar to adjacent historic buildings; (4) Proportion. The relationship between the height and width of new buildings or additions to existing buildings must be similar in proportion to existing historic buildings. The proportion of openings in the facades of new construction or additions must be compatible with similar openings in adjacent historic buildings; (5) Rhythm and scale. The rhythm, placement, and scale of openings, prominent vertical and horizontal members, and separation of buildings which are present in adjacent historic buildings must be incorporated into the design of new buildings or additions to existing buildings; (6) Materials. Materials which make up new buildings or additions to existing buildings must complement materials present in nearby historic properties. New materials must be of similar color, texture, reflective qualities, and scale as historical materials present in the historic district; (7) Color. The colors of materials, trim, ornament, and details used in new construction must be similar to those colors on existing historic buildings or must match colors used in previous historical periods for identical features within the historic district; (8) Details and ornament. The details and ornament on new buildings or additions to existing buildings must be of contemporary design that is complementary to those features of similar physical or decorative function on adjacent historic buildings; (9) Roof shape and skyline. The roof shape and skyline of new construction must be similar to that of existing historic buildings; (10) Setting. The relationship of new buildings or additions to existing buildings must maintain the traditional placement of historic buildings in relation to streets, sidewalks, natural topography, and lot lines; and (11) Landscaping and ground cover. Retaining walls, fences, plants, and other landscaping elements that are part of new construction may not introduce elements which are out of character with the setting of the historic district. In addition to the SD Administrative Rules, the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission reviews and considers the following sources when making its recommendations: Case Report Standards, Secretary of Interior Standards for Design (http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm), technical preservation briefs and new alternatives and supporting facts. Staff advised that SDCL 1-19A-11.1 requires local governments extend certain protections to historic properties listed on national, state or local registers. Cities have both the authority and duty to deny a permit for any project adversely affecting an historic property if there is a feasible and prudent alternative that will eliminate or mitigate the adverse impact. The applicant bears burden of proving that the conditions for the permit have been met. They must show absence of feasible and prudent alternatives and appropriate planning to minimize harm. The Commission asked Bozied if he had considered other alternatives to removing the structure. No, he has purchased the property with the intent of removing it. 3 Thornes said the applicant must consider all reasonable alternative plans, not just the least expensive option. The applicant must also demonstrate that all feasible and prudent alternatives been explored. Alternative examples to consider could include, but are not limited to different use, scaling back use, relocation, rezoning, code modification, integration into new construction, selling and other. Any determination of existence or non-existence of feasible and prudent alternatives must be supported by sufficient facts. Project opponents can suggest alternatives, but those suggested alternatives must be supported by sufficient facts to indicate they are feasible and prudent. Is a casino planned in the space? Bozied said no. Willert suggested the house could be used as a small office space. Thornes advised that he would need to provide sufficient facts that would indicate a small office space was a feasible and prudent alternative. Facts could include financial components and compliance with zoning standards, parking requirements and other city standards. Thornes noted that the convenience store was reviewed several years ago when it was built. The impact of scale, buffering, traffic, noise, brightness of pump lights were all evaluated with respect to the historic district. She recently spoke with Community Development staff regarding the project and they advised that the 912 6th Street property served as a buffer for the convenience store. They didn’t think he could remove the house and expand to the lot line without a variance. Thornes noted the house, though noncontributing, is still a residential structure that serves as a buffer between the contributing National Register properties and the commercial structure. All surrounding property to the south and west are contributing properties in the District. Commissioners noted the importance of a buffer that would include landscaping, trees, fences, etc. Does he plan to move the car wash to the west end? Bozied said no. It was clarified that Bozied’s customers can’t access the alley. The Commission asked Bozied to provide a parking plan diagram, landscaping plan if the house was removed, and pictures of the area. A motion was made by Bibby, seconded by Willert, stating there was insufficient information in case report to provide comment and to table action until the following information was provided: additional information on the new structure design, clarification on the setback and variances required including landscaping, and pictures. All present voted yes; motion carried. UNIVERSITY RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT 11.1 Review on 616 7th Avenue - PENDING. Cala LLC (David & Tasha Jones) has applied for a demolition permit for the house located at 616 7th Avenue. The house is listed as a contributing property in the Brookings University Residential Historic District. It should be noted that the official National Register nomination listed this property as 616 7th Avenue; however, the city’s official address for the property is 614 7th Avenue. 4 This property is located directly behind the owner’s primary residence. Jones has successfully completed several restoration and rehabilitation projects in the University District; however, he has determined this home has a number of structural and design problems and rehabilitation would be cost prohibitive. It was originally a farmhouse that was moved onto this site with various additions thereafter. The owner wishes to remove this structure and move in the house located at 417 9th Avenue. The 417 9th Avenue house was moved onto the lot in the late 1960s and is not a contributing structure in the District. Jones plans to move the circa 1910 house onto a new basement, remove the existing portico and replace with an appropriate front porch, and build a new garage behind. The original barn was damaged in a fire and removed. A motion was made by Brink, seconded by Fetzer-Fickler, to agree with the findings of the case report citing the following reasons: restoring the house at 616 7th Avenue was not prudent or feasible due to condition issues not caused by the current owner and that the house proposed for the site met Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and State Administrative Rules for New Construction in an Historic District. Further, the motion requested the owner provide pictures of surrounding properties, that the owner be encouraged to offer salvage to the ReSTore and invite SHPO staff to see house when in town if needed for decision making process. All present voted yes; motion carried. COMMERCIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT Masonic Temple. Rowland distributed a draft design plan that would install original sized first floor windows, rehab the second floor windows, recreate the turret, and remodel the first floor interior. The owners are working with Clark Drew Construction on this project and are on a short timeline trying to get a tenant in by June 1st. INDIVIDUALLY LISTED 11.1 Review for 423 8th Street (garage) – Pending. Bob and Pat Fishback have applied for a demolition permit for a garage located at 423 8th Street. The property at 423 8th Street is an individually listed property on the National Register of Historic Places. Although, the barn/garage is not listed as a contributing feature for this nomination, an 11.1 review is still required. Formal notification to SHPO is pending. National Alliance of Preservation Commission Conference. The BHPC received funding to send staff and one member to the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Conference in Philadelphia from July 16-20. However, staff is not able to attend due to scheduling conflicts. Anyone attending on behalf of the BHPC will be required to attend sessions pertaining to local register district commission training. They will also need to provide detailed verbal and written reports on the sessions. Brink and Gritzner are tentatively planning to attend. Thornes needs final confirmation by March 21st. Volunteer Coffee with Mayor Reed. Mayor Reed is hosting the third annual City Volunteer Leadership Coffee on May 8 and May 16 with all city volunteer board, committee, council and commission chairs and vice chairs. His goal is to provide information on city issues and seek input from all groups. This will also be an opportunity to bring forward an issue or concern from respective groups. Commissioners suggested the Preserve America signs, 6th Street widening and demolitions on campus as topics to discuss. 5 PROJECT & ISSUE UPDATES: Sustainability Posters. Thornes distributed suggested “tag lines” for the two posters. The Commission selected their favorites, which are underlined. “The Greenest Building is the One Already Built.” “When we reuse an historic building, we’re recycling the whole thing!” “Tearing down one small home in your neighborhood wipes out the entire environmental benefit of recycling 1,344,000 aluminum cans.” “100% of the preservation movement advances the cause of the environment.” “Sustainability means stewardship. There can be no sustainable development without a central role for historic preservation.” “One-fourth of material in landfills today is from construction debris, and much of that is from demolition of existing buildings.” “Historic buildings outlast new construction. Life expectancy for many contemporary buildings is 30-40 years, considerably less than the life expectancy for the average restored or rehabilitated building.” (This needs to be shortened.) “Development without a historic preservation component is not sustainable.” “Historic preservation is, in and of itself, sustainable development.” 3D Laser Scanning. Sara Lum plans to contact the owners of the Sexauer Seed complex, understanding that these aren’t structures to be dismantled, but it would be amazing places to scan. She also suggested these visualization materials may help anyone trying to solicit funding to preserve the structures. PRESERVATION PARTNERS: Bob Yapp Workshop • Location Options. Twelve homes were nominated by owners as workshop locations. Rowland and Thornes have toured 5 and will finish their review next week. Preference will be given to a location that could be used for all three workshops. ∗ 728 Main Avenue (Kyle Fergen) – windows, wood repair, has garage ∗ 903 3rd Avenue (Kevin Grunewaldt) – paint, windows ∗ 316 Medary Ave (Kevin Grunewaldt) ∗ 202 6th Street (Dorothy Ishol) - windows, siding, has garage ∗ 728 6th Avenue (Natasha Penner) Paint & exterior wood ∗ 821 9th Street (Greg Pearson) ∗ 1125 5th Street (Ashley Ragsdale) Windows ∗ 502 6th Avenue (Jeff and Heidi Fischer) paint, windows ∗ 727 Main Avenue (Kristi Tornquist) windows 6 ∗ 802 5th Street (Eileen & Steve Binkley) ∗ 321 8th Street (George & Julie Hamer) windows, paint, wood ∗ 929 8th Avenue (Rich Widman) ∗ 908 5th Street (Laine Evenson) windows, wood • Location Evaluation Checklist. Thornes developed a criteria checklist that is being used to evaluate each location. • Waivers. The City Attorney created waivers that participating property owners will be required to sign. • Publicity. Promotion of the one day workshops and the classroom sessions will include email and direct mail to CLGs, ads in the Shopper 2X, 3/17, 3/31, 4/7 (if needed) and Brookings Register, utility bill insert on 3/31, posters, government channel, website, social media and radio spots (if needed). • Event Assistance. There are a number of logistical tasks that need to be accomplished before and during the events. Thornes will email a list of tasks and ask for volunteers. • Sunday Workshop Topics. ∗ Noon - Paint It Right! How to get a 12 to 15 year, cost effective paint job for your historic house. You can hire it done, never lift a finger and do it twice in 24 to 30 years for about the same price of a competent vinyl siding job that will last 15 years. 1 to 3 hours with Q & A, props & handouts. ∗ 2 pm - Getting Shellacked or Innovative Woodwork Finishing & Refinishing - Safe and efficient ways to remove old paint and natural finishes from woodwork. 1 hour with Q & A and props. ∗ 4 pm - Energy Efficiency for Old Houses & Buildings - Just because it's shiny and new does not mean it will work in your old house or building. This seminar dispels the myths and addresses how old houses were designed . Bob talks about what retro-fits for energy efficiency actually work as well as paybacks. Insulation, air flow, weather stripping, windows, geo thermal, solar and wind are all topics of discussion. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) • Statewide CLG Meeting – May 29th . The Statewide CLG Meeting will be held on Thursday, May 29th in Pierre, SD. Travel expenses are reimbursable for anyone wishing to attend including hotel expenses for anyone wishing to drive up the day before. Members are asked to submit their completed registration forms to Shari not later than April 4th. • Recent AG Opinion on SDCL 1-19A-11.1. The Commission reviewed the newly written AG opinion on the 11.1 review law. Thornes met with the City Attorney on March 11th to discuss possible implications. A more thorough discussion of this issue will be scheduled on the April agenda. Thornes highlighted the following key points: • Building permits are required by law to be reviewed. • The law pertains to any governmental entity issuing a permit of any kind. 7 • It requires local governments to extend certain protections to historic properties listed on national, state or local registers. • Municipalities and local preservation commissions are required to apply the state administrative standards to reviews performed pursuant to SDCL 1-19A-11.1. • Are NOT to issue a permit for any project that would encroach upon, damage or destroy a designated property if there is a feasible and prudent alternative that would prevent such encroachment, damage or destruction. • The applicant bears burden of proving that the conditions for the permit have been met. They must show absence of feasible and prudent alternatives and appropriate planning to minimize harm. • Applicant must consider ALL reasonable alternative plans, not just the least expensive option. • Any determination of existence or non-existence of feasible and prudent alternatives must be supported by sufficient facts. • Project opponents can suggest alternatives, but those suggested alternatives must be supported by sufficient facts to indicate they are feasible and prudent. • Cities have both the authority and duty to deny a permit for any project adversely affecting an historic property if this a feasible and prudent alternative that will eliminate or mitigate the adverse impact. Project may not proceed. • A proponent’s proposed use of the historic property is relevant, though not necessary determinative, consideration. • Alternative need not necessarily be compatible with the proposed described in the project application (i.e. scaling back, different use, integrating old into new construction, selling). • An alternative need not afford the highest or most profitable use to be prudent, but is prudent so long as it provides some viable economic use for the projected property. • Hardship does not encompass increased restoration or rehab costs caused by an owner’s neglect of basic maintenance and repair. Thornes said the Commission’s decision making process regarding 11.1 recommendations will need to be clearly defined, factual and utilize a standardized method of applying the Standards. All members will be provided with supporting material for making those decisions. Information will be available online and in manual form. A brochure for applicants will also be created that provides information about the process and the online links for the Standards. Thornes has contacted SHPO to provide training on the Secretary of Interior Standards for Design and Identifying and Evaluating Potential Adverse Effects to Historic Properties. 8 Thornes said there are a number of questions that need further explanation by the AG. There is disagreement about who should prepare the case report, the applicant or staff. Sioux Falls and Rapid City have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding 11.1 review that defines types of projects that can be reviewed by Preservation Commission staff and which ones require a full review. Thornes distributed a draft MOU for Brookings for review and action at the April meeting. Of note, the definition of “additions” needs to be further defined and discussed. • Resumes. The National Park Service requires membership resumes along with the annual funding application. Members are asked to submit resumes to Thornes not later than March 21st. Announcements/Correspondence/Communications/Calendar April 3-5 State Historical Society Board of Trustees Meetings, Pierre May 1-4 Bob Yapp Workshops May 2-3 Brookings History & Garden Festival May 8 @ 5 pm Volunteer Coffee with Mayor Reed May 16 @ 8 am Volunteer Coffee with Mayor Reed May 29 Statewide CLG meeting – Pierre, SD July 16-20 National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, Philadelphia Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Submitted by Shari Thornes